Lack of Joy, Lack of Success?

First topic message reminder :

After watching England lose to Australia in the rugby league world cup and watching the post match interviews something dawned on me.

Is the inherently joyless nature the Brits bring to sport responsible for their continued inability to foot it with the sun blessed fun loving boys from the southern hemisphere?

In the south, rugby is about passion, fun, running, showing off, executing outrageous skills, scoring tries, having fun with mates, the joyful bonding and rivalry with mates and opposition team members. A lot of rapturous jubilant elated uplifting energy is injected and out comes some sublime rugby and a history of success.

Contrast the wind beaten, rain lashed, grey of the north. The attitude brought here is the stiff upper lip, the grinding steely faced men, collars upturned against the elements, grim determination, phalanxes of dour faced combatants marching into war, and what I would call "fearful" rugby. It propagates control, order, slow, plodding monotonous structure, set pieces, kicks at goal. A win is a nervous grinding, painful, thing extracted like a venemous prickle with a hot needle.

More often than not these sullen faced ranks of northern hardship are simply overwhelmed and overrun by the smiling, jubilant dancing willow-the-wisps who bring a festive mood to the game.

Contrast Israel Dagg in full flight, wide grin on his face, trying something audacious, enjoying expressing himself in his contribution to the arrogant presence of a tight lipped Chris Ashton punching at the air before the try line, face burning with intent like he's out for revenge over some generations old nemesis. One continues to thrive, the other appears burned out.

fa0019 wrote:especially given the nationality of the participants can vary significantly and have no relation to the boat.

Its club sailing, not nation sailing... like saying club football is an indicator of the national game.

it's money sailing, not even clubs! hence why switzerland won without even having a coastline! minimum budget required currently...$100m

butterfingers wrote:If only PI people were superb sailors too  

anyone who navigates the entire pacific ocean on a canoe qualifies as a superb sailor to me to be fair.

butterfingers wrote:It's why ive never understood people who root for team sky at cycling...

because they have delivered a british entry and british individual's first ever success at the tour de france? because they have brought real science and professionalism to a sport formerly dominated by doping and "omerta". because they have kept a strong core of the team british cyclists.

any of those would do for me as reasons to support sky in the TdF over any other team.

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:It's why ive never understood people who root for team sky at cycling...

because they have delivered a british entry and british individual's first ever success at the tour de france? because they have brought real science and professionalism to a sport formerly dominated by doping and "omerta". because they have kept a strong core of the team british cyclists.

any of those would do for me as reasons to support sky in the TdF over any other team.

  See what I mean?!

butterfingers wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:It's why ive never understood people who root for team sky at cycling...

because they have delivered a british entry and british individual's first ever success at the tour de france? because they have brought real science and professionalism to a sport formerly dominated by doping and "omerta". because they have kept a strong core of the team british cyclists.

any of those would do for me as reasons to support sky in the TdF over any other team.

  See what I mean?!

you obviously dont follow cycling  

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:It's why ive never understood people who root for team sky at cycling...

because they have delivered a british entry and british individual's first ever success at the tour de france? because they have brought real science and professionalism to a sport formerly dominated by doping and "omerta". because they have kept a strong core of the team british cyclists.

any of those would do for me as reasons to support sky in the TdF over any other team.

But I take BF's point... cycling at that level is a team sport but for some reason they don't give a team award, only an individual award. It would be like rewarding a FIFA world cup win to Maradona, not Argentina for instance.

Team Sky has a lot of Brits but not solely Brits. If you were to follow one team, that would be the team to follow sure mind (for a Brit)

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:It's why ive never understood people who root for team sky at cycling...

because they have delivered a british entry and british individual's first ever success at the tour de france? because they have brought real science and professionalism to a sport formerly dominated by doping and "omerta". because they have kept a strong core of the team british cyclists.

any of those would do for me as reasons to support sky in the TdF over any other team.

  See what I mean?!

you obviously dont follow cycling  

I follow cycling about as much as the Americas cup, oh and world championship tiddly winks, they all hold similar entertainment value  

fa0019 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:It's why ive never understood people who root for team sky at cycling...

because they have delivered a british entry and british individual's first ever success at the tour de france? because they have brought real science and professionalism to a sport formerly dominated by doping and "omerta". because they have kept a strong core of the team british cyclists.

any of those would do for me as reasons to support sky in the TdF over any other team.

But I take BF's point... cycling at that level is a team sport but for some reason they don't give a team award, only an individual award. It would be like rewarding a FIFA world cup win to Maradona, not Argentina for instance.

Team Sky has a lot of Brits but not solely Brits. If you were to follow one team, that would be the team to follow sure mind (for a Brit)

so, if you take his point, you both think the TdF is a stupid event. because it is, and always has been, a team event designed to produce a single winner. and while you two are entitled to your opinion, however the 170million who watch the TdF might disagree with you.

Real science and professionalism. Hmm. Sounds like the Americas cup to me.

butterfingers wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:It's why ive never understood people who root for team sky at cycling...

because they have delivered a british entry and british individual's first ever success at the tour de france? because they have brought real science and professionalism to a sport formerly dominated by doping and "omerta". because they have kept a strong core of the team british cyclists.

any of those would do for me as reasons to support sky in the TdF over any other team.

  See what I mean?!

you obviously dont follow cycling  

I follow cycling about as much as the Americas cup, oh and world championship tiddly winks, they all hold similar entertainment value  

good for you. ignorant to post such a WUM comment if thats the case.

quinsforever wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:It's why ive never understood people who root for team sky at cycling...

because they have delivered a british entry and british individual's first ever success at the tour de france? because they have brought real science and professionalism to a sport formerly dominated by doping and "omerta". because they have kept a strong core of the team british cyclists.

any of those would do for me as reasons to support sky in the TdF over any other team.

But I take BF's point... cycling at that level is a team sport but for some reason they don't give a team award, only an individual award. It would be like rewarding a FIFA world cup win to Maradona, not Argentina for instance.

Team Sky has a lot of Brits but not solely Brits. If you were to follow one team, that would be the team to follow sure mind (for a Brit)

so, if you take his point, you both think the TdF is a stupid event. because it is, and always has been, a team event designed to produce a single winner. and while you two are entitled to your opinion, however the 170million who watch the TdF might disagree with you.

Dunno the British media pretty much awarded the 2003 RWC to Jonny Wilkinson as I remember it.

quinsforever wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:It's why ive never understood people who root for team sky at cycling...

because they have delivered a british entry and british individual's first ever success at the tour de france? because they have brought real science and professionalism to a sport formerly dominated by doping and "omerta". because they have kept a strong core of the team british cyclists.

any of those would do for me as reasons to support sky in the TdF over any other team.

But I take BF's point... cycling at that level is a team sport but for some reason they don't give a team award, only an individual award. It would be like rewarding a FIFA world cup win to Maradona, not Argentina for instance.

Team Sky has a lot of Brits but not solely Brits. If you were to follow one team, that would be the team to follow sure mind (for a Brit)

so, if you take his point, you both think the TdF is a stupid event. because it is, and always has been, a team event designed to produce a single winner. and while you two are entitled to your opinion, however the 170million who watch the TdF might disagree with you.

Who said stupid? I claimed I found it as entertaining as tiddlywinks, and fa claimed I had a point because Sky will employ any riders that will do a job. Don't get so emotional, if I think cycling is boring then it is.

quins

I think its a good sporting event but its a little obtuse to view it as solely an individual sport and in fact a good cyclist with a great team behind him can beat a great cyclist with a poor team around him. Hence, the team is a more deciding factor in the result then the individual... yet come the awards, only the individual is remembered.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:It's why ive never understood people who root for team sky at cycling...

because they have delivered a british entry and british individual's first ever success at the tour de france? because they have brought real science and professionalism to a sport formerly dominated by doping and "omerta". because they have kept a strong core of the team british cyclists.

any of those would do for me as reasons to support sky in the TdF over any other team.

But I take BF's point... cycling at that level is a team sport but for some reason they don't give a team award, only an individual award. It would be like rewarding a FIFA world cup win to Maradona, not Argentina for instance.

Team Sky has a lot of Brits but not solely Brits. If you were to follow one team, that would be the team to follow sure mind (for a Brit)

so, if you take his point, you both think the TdF is a stupid event. because it is, and always has been, a team event designed to produce a single winner. and while you two are entitled to your opinion, however the 170million who watch the TdF might disagree with you.

Dunno the British media pretty much awarded the 2003 RWC to Jonny Wilkinson  as I remember it.

Thats different, the greatest all black team of all time in their prime wouldn't have stopped Jonny that year!

fa0019 wrote:quins

I think its a good sporting event but its a little obtuse to view it as solely an individual sport and in fact a good cyclist with a great team behind him can beat a great cyclist with a poor team around him. Hence, the team is a more deciding factor in the result then the individual... yet come the awards, only the individual is remembered.

i am glad you agree why the TdF is such a compelling event. it is a team event designed to produce a single winner. vastly more complex and subtle than an individual event.

quinsforever wrote:

fa0019 wrote:quins

I think its a good sporting event but its a little obtuse to view it as solely an individual sport and in fact a good cyclist with a great team behind him can beat a great cyclist with a poor team around him. Hence, the team is a more deciding factor in the result then the individual... yet come the awards, only the individual is remembered.

i am glad you agree why the TdF is such a compelling event. it is a team event designed to produce a single winner. vastly more complex and subtle than an individual event.

I dislike every sport where technology supercedes participant ability!

butterfingers wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:It's why ive never understood people who root for team sky at cycling...

because they have delivered a british entry and british individual's first ever success at the tour de france? because they have brought real science and professionalism to a sport formerly dominated by doping and "omerta". because they have kept a strong core of the team british cyclists.

any of those would do for me as reasons to support sky in the TdF over any other team.

But I take BF's point... cycling at that level is a team sport but for some reason they don't give a team award, only an individual award. It would be like rewarding a FIFA world cup win to Maradona, not Argentina for instance.

Team Sky has a lot of Brits but not solely Brits. If you were to follow one team, that would be the team to follow sure mind (for a Brit)

so, if you take his point, you both think the TdF is a stupid event. because it is, and always has been, a team event designed to produce a single winner. and while you two are entitled to your opinion, however the 170million who watch the TdF might disagree with you.

Dunno the British media pretty much awarded the 2003 RWC to Jonny Wilkinson  as I remember it.

Thats different, the greatest all black team of all time in their prime wouldn't have stopped Jonny that year!

Odd that they did it three times in a row just a couple of months later then, surely?

GloriousEmpire wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:It's why ive never understood people who root for team sky at cycling...

because they have delivered a british entry and british individual's first ever success at the tour de france? because they have brought real science and professionalism to a sport formerly dominated by doping and "omerta". because they have kept a strong core of the team british cyclists.

any of those would do for me as reasons to support sky in the TdF over any other team.

But I take BF's point... cycling at that level is a team sport but for some reason they don't give a team award, only an individual award. It would be like rewarding a FIFA world cup win to Maradona, not Argentina for instance.

Team Sky has a lot of Brits but not solely Brits. If you were to follow one team, that would be the team to follow sure mind (for a Brit)

so, if you take his point, you both think the TdF is a stupid event. because it is, and always has been, a team event designed to produce a single winner. and while you two are entitled to your opinion, however the 170million who watch the TdF might disagree with you.

Dunno the British media pretty much awarded the 2003 RWC to Jonny Wilkinson  as I remember it.

Thats different, the greatest all black team of all time in their prime wouldn't have stopped Jonny that year!

Odd that they did it three times in a row just a couple of months later then, surely?

And did they enjoy their RWC win for those 3 wins...

quinsforever wrote:

fa0019 wrote:quins

I think its a good sporting event but its a little obtuse to view it as solely an individual sport and in fact a good cyclist with a great team behind him can beat a great cyclist with a poor team around him. Hence, the team is a more deciding factor in the result then the individual... yet come the awards, only the individual is remembered.

i am glad you agree why the TdF is such a compelling event. it is a team event designed to produce a single winner. vastly more complex and subtle than an individual event.

Yes but you could argue it can be manipulated to skew winners and losers.

Is NZ the best rugby team in the world. Yes.
Is Spain the best football team in the world. Yes
Is Chris Froome the best grand tour cyclist in the world? Debatable for the above reasons.

butterfingers wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

fa0019 wrote:quins

I think its a good sporting event but its a little obtuse to view it as solely an individual sport and in fact a good cyclist with a great team behind him can beat a great cyclist with a poor team around him. Hence, the team is a more deciding factor in the result then the individual... yet come the awards, only the individual is remembered.

i am glad you agree why the TdF is such a compelling event. it is a team event designed to produce a single winner. vastly more complex and subtle than an individual event.

I dislike every sport where technology supercedes participant ability!

are you kidding? they are on bikes. you know, two wheels and a few other bits. been around for 150 years or so. powered entirely by the human. and v little innovation in bike technology is permitted - all the riders have off the shelf bikes from manufacturers.

the science is in the training, just like in rugby in the professional era. cycling is all about the participant ability. and TdF is also about team tactics and superhuman endurance.

do a bit or research into the 15th stage which finished up Mont Ventoux this year and you will understand how epic this race is...242km, last 20km a steady climb of 1600m.

I'm sure they enjoyed it just as much as we all did. The high light being the crushed and clueless Clive Woodward leaving Auckland airport protesting that his side, slain repeatedly by 30 point margins were the better team who'd somehow gotten on the wrong side of the score board. Hilarious stuff. I chuckled over that one myself for some time. Judge a team on World Cup success he then ventured. Oops. Backfire...

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

fa0019 wrote:quins

I think its a good sporting event but its a little obtuse to view it as solely an individual sport and in fact a good cyclist with a great team behind him can beat a great cyclist with a poor team around him. Hence, the team is a more deciding factor in the result then the individual... yet come the awards, only the individual is remembered.

i am glad you agree why the TdF is such a compelling event. it is a team event designed to produce a single winner. vastly more complex and subtle than an individual event.

I dislike every sport where technology supercedes participant ability!

are you kidding? they are on bikes. you know, two wheels and a few other bits. been around for 150 years or so. powered entirely by the human. and v little innovation in bike technology is permitted - all the riders have off the shelf bikes from manufacturers.

the science is in the training, just like in rugby in the professional era. cycling is all about the participant ability. and TdF is also about team tactics and superhuman endurance.

do a bit or research into the 15th stage which finished up Mont Ventoux this year and you will understand how epic this race is...242km, last 20km a steady climb of 1600m.

If it's so ability driven why are we constantly talking about unfairness due to cycle technologies? Theres even shirts that give less resistance, they should all buy the yellow type of shirt that the guy who generally wins uses, why just talk about it, everyone should get one.

fa0019 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

fa0019 wrote:quins

I think its a good sporting event but its a little obtuse to view it as solely an individual sport and in fact a good cyclist with a great team behind him can beat a great cyclist with a poor team around him. Hence, the team is a more deciding factor in the result then the individual... yet come the awards, only the individual is remembered.

i am glad you agree why the TdF is such a compelling event. it is a team event designed to produce a single winner. vastly more complex and subtle than an individual event.

Yes but you could argue it can be manipulated to skew winners and losers.

Is NZ the best rugby team in the world. Yes.
Is Spain the best football team in the world. Yes
Is Chris Froome the best grand tour cyclist in the world? Debatable for the above reasons.

who is talking about chris froome being the best in the world. i would prefer to ask has Team Sky delivered two british winners of the TdF in two years. Yes. are those the first british winners ever? yes.

butterfingers wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

fa0019 wrote:quins

I think its a good sporting event but its a little obtuse to view it as solely an individual sport and in fact a good cyclist with a great team behind him can beat a great cyclist with a poor team around him. Hence, the team is a more deciding factor in the result then the individual... yet come the awards, only the individual is remembered.

i am glad you agree why the TdF is such a compelling event. it is a team event designed to produce a single winner. vastly more complex and subtle than an individual event.

I dislike every sport where technology supercedes participant ability!

are you kidding? they are on bikes. you know, two wheels and a few other bits. been around for 150 years or so. powered entirely by the human. and v little innovation in bike technology is permitted - all the riders have off the shelf bikes from manufacturers.

the science is in the training, just like in rugby in the professional era. cycling is all about the participant ability. and TdF is also about team tactics and superhuman endurance.

do a bit or research into the 15th stage which finished up Mont Ventoux this year and you will understand how epic this race is...242km, last 20km a steady climb of 1600m.

If it's so ability driven why are we constantly talking about unfairness due to cycle technologies? Theres even shirts that give less resistance, they should all buy the yellow type of shirt that the guy who generally wins uses, why just talk about it, everyone should get one.

in the grand tours you will not find any mention of the importance of cycle technologies. see above re two wheel and other bits. or go to the UCI website and read the specific regulations relating to all bikes being standard.

you might be thinking of track cycling and some changes in the 90s?

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

fa0019 wrote:quins

I think its a good sporting event but its a little obtuse to view it as solely an individual sport and in fact a good cyclist with a great team behind him can beat a great cyclist with a poor team around him. Hence, the team is a more deciding factor in the result then the individual... yet come the awards, only the individual is remembered.

i am glad you agree why the TdF is such a compelling event. it is a team event designed to produce a single winner. vastly more complex and subtle than an individual event.

I dislike every sport where technology supercedes participant ability!

are you kidding? they are on bikes. you know, two wheels and a few other bits. been around for 150 years or so. powered entirely by the human. and v little innovation in bike technology is permitted - all the riders have off the shelf bikes from manufacturers.

the science is in the training, just like in rugby in the professional era. cycling is all about the participant ability. and TdF is also about team tactics and superhuman endurance.

do a bit or research into the 15th stage which finished up Mont Ventoux this year and you will understand how epic this race is...242km, last 20km a steady climb of 1600m.

The science is in keeping ahead of the drugs testers.

GloriousEmpire wrote:I'm sure they enjoyed it just as much as we all did. The high light being the crushed and clueless Clive Woodward leaving Auckland airport protesting that his side, slain repeatedly by 30 point margins were the better team who'd somehow gotten on the wrong side of the score board. Hilarious stuff. I chuckled over that one myself for some time. Judge a team on World Cup success he then ventured. Oops. Backfire...

haha I hope that memory serves you well, because Jonny winning the world cup will played played world wide until 2015 when we hold another   Not that your petty or anything, but then if getting smashed by 30 points is what you enjoy, I have been chuckling for near 12 months  

GloriousEmpire wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

fa0019 wrote:quins

I think its a good sporting event but its a little obtuse to view it as solely an individual sport and in fact a good cyclist with a great team behind him can beat a great cyclist with a poor team around him. Hence, the team is a more deciding factor in the result then the individual... yet come the awards, only the individual is remembered.

i am glad you agree why the TdF is such a compelling event. it is a team event designed to produce a single winner. vastly more complex and subtle than an individual event.

I dislike every sport where technology supercedes participant ability!

are you kidding? they are on bikes. you know, two wheels and a few other bits. been around for 150 years or so. powered entirely by the human. and v little innovation in bike technology is permitted - all the riders have off the shelf bikes from manufacturers.

the science is in the training, just like in rugby in the professional era. cycling is all about the participant ability. and TdF is also about team tactics and superhuman endurance.

do a bit or research into the 15th stage which finished up Mont Ventoux this year and you will understand how epic this race is...242km, last 20km a steady climb of 1600m.

The science is in keeping ahead of the drugs testers.

no thats just done with money in brown paper bags. but that is a reason i like Team Sky vs the other teams.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

fa0019 wrote:quins

I think its a good sporting event but its a little obtuse to view it as solely an individual sport and in fact a good cyclist with a great team behind him can beat a great cyclist with a poor team around him. Hence, the team is a more deciding factor in the result then the individual... yet come the awards, only the individual is remembered.

i am glad you agree why the TdF is such a compelling event. it is a team event designed to produce a single winner. vastly more complex and subtle than an individual event.

I dislike every sport where technology supercedes participant ability!

are you kidding? they are on bikes. you know, two wheels and a few other bits. been around for 150 years or so. powered entirely by the human. and v little innovation in bike technology is permitted - all the riders have off the shelf bikes from manufacturers.

the science is in the training, just like in rugby in the professional era. cycling is all about the participant ability. and TdF is also about team tactics and superhuman endurance.

do a bit or research into the 15th stage which finished up Mont Ventoux this year and you will understand how epic this race is...242km, last 20km a steady climb of 1600m.

The science is in keeping ahead of the drugs testers.

GE you have it wrong, the science is the doping, it's the skill that keeps them ahead of testers  

butterfingers wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:I'm sure they enjoyed it just as much as we all did. The high light being the crushed and clueless Clive Woodward leaving Auckland airport protesting that his side, slain repeatedly by 30 point margins were the better team who'd somehow gotten on the wrong side of the score board. Hilarious stuff. I chuckled over that one myself for some time. Judge a team on World Cup success he then ventured. Oops. Backfire...

haha I hope that memory serves you well, because Jonny winning the world cup will played played world wide until 2015 when we hold another   Not that your petty or anything, but then if getting smashed by 30 points is what you enjoy, I have been chuckling for near 12 months  

I really don't think you want to get into a debate about England's record against NZ. However 38-21 = 17 and you'll have to enjoy for another ten years, on average...

dont get me started on doping  doping is (was hopefully) so prevalent precisely because the winner is nothing to do with the machinery, its all about performance. And EPO and synthetic-EPO are 15-25% performance enhancers. would be the equivalent of your front row being faster than your wingers LOL

GE - granted, mind your argument ala 2003 holds as much weight as Scotlands claim to being the world champs after slim jim danced through the English defence in 1967.

I'm a big cycling fan and roadie. Just Sportives for me now but these guys are incredible. I've managed a few century rides and climbed a couple of Cols in Germany or Bergs if you like. To do a 250 k ride every day over three weeks with three rest days is stretching what the body can do, hence the "doping" or blood re-oxygenating to be a little more precise. I like to think we have a clean sport now Lance and McQuaid have gone. It is a team sport as fans and riders within the sport appreciate the role "Super domestiques" such as Richie Porte bring to the sport.

Perhaps you shouldn't slate a sport if you're not familiar with the way it works.

quinsforever wrote:dont get me started on doping  doping is (was hopefully) so prevalent precisely because the winner is nothing to do with the machinery, its all about performance. And EPO and synthetic-EPO are 15-25% performance enhancers. would be the equivalent of your front row being faster than your wingers LOL

that cannot be true. So say a time trial race is 2hrs long. You're saying that EPO will mean the winner could win in 30mins less compared to an equally gifted and supported individual. In time trials most are within that grouping so you're assuming all are drug takers then.

They were marginal gains, just like shaving 10 grs off your frame or shaving your arms and legs.

Recovery is the key with muscle repair now successfully achieved through legal drinks/bars and more efficient blood conditioning (each rider must have an up to date blood passport btw) achieved by altitude training combined with other legal means.

Sky use Mount Tiede in Teneriffe for pre training. Pro cyclists are supreme athletes today.

The same claims were made about Armstrong. How can we believe them now after someone cried wolf?

Ironically the best drugs testing in world sport has uncovered a lot of cheats in cycling probably made it much cleaner but left constant question marks over participants. I wonder why sports such as rugby and football haven't put in as much money and effort into testing?

GloriousEmpire wrote:
The same claims were made about Armstrong. How can we believe them now after someone cried wolf?

There will always be abusers in various sports, Rugby has them, soccer has them, athletics has them. The difference with cycling now as opposed to the recent past is the governing body is no longer allegedly covering up for riders like Lance. I think we now have a clean product.....Doctor Ferrari and his like have erased from the sport

Clean product, do you honestly believe that? The cheats will be ahead of the system and most 'think' cycling is still a bent sport.

The 15-30% differences shows up mostly on hills. If you really want to know why it's because flat time trials, power Reqd increases exponentially with speed due to wind resistance equations. Up hills wind resistance is not a factor so power Reqd doesn't increase exponentially.

Look at the improvement in time up known climbs from 1989 (epi discovered 1990) compared with lance Armstrong in 2000s. Alpe d'huez record went from 48mins (hinault and lemond) to 36 in 10 years.

Tiger, what they do on the bike is epic. I climbed mont ventoux this year in May. Only did 30k beforehand compared to the 222k the TdF boys did. Was an unreal experience.

Yeah, and no-one in rugby is taking drugs to bull up either...doh!

It's bent as a three bob note and the taxi driver that picked me up in Sloane square tonight and managed to run up a £20 fare to gloucester road.

ebop wrote:Clean product, do you honestly believe that? The cheats will be ahead of the system and most 'think' cycling is still a bent sport.

Yes, I do believe Cycling is 99% clean. I'm also sure there is someone somewhere looking for an edge but the spotlight shines very brightly on cycling and as a result changes to administration,monitoring and whistle blowing have been implemented making it more and more difficult to cheat. Some will always suspect wrong doing given cycling's woeful history but I believe a corner has been turned. Not all will ever be convinced though, that I accept.

GloriousEmpire wrote:It's bent as a three bob note and the taxi driver that picked me up in Sloane square tonight and managed to run up a £20 fare to gloucester road.

Must be if you say so I guess.....You've probably completed numerous TdF stages too

ebop wrote:Clean product, do you honestly believe that? The cheats will be ahead of the system and most 'think' cycling is still a bent sport.

To be fair, cycling is the only sport where anti doping is taken seriously. You get probably 10 times more testing than in any other sports. Blood samples are kept too so that you can always test them in a near future when techniques have evolved. Cyclists have taken a lot of stick because of what happened during a good 10-15 years and rightly so but at least they are getting their act together. I still have my doubts about some of the riders but one could say its a minority when you look at the relative performances between now and 5-10 years ago. Whereas in other sports like athletics, tennis and rugby they cannot even say that and the rules seem more lenient towards cheats.

If the money in rugby ever gets anywhere close to cycling I am sure there will be lots more doping in rugby. It's the money.

quinsforever wrote:The 15-30% differences shows up mostly on hills. If you really want to know why it's because flat time trials, power Reqd increases exponentially with speed due to wind resistance equations. Up hills wind resistance is not a factor so power Reqd doesn't increase exponentially.

Look at the improvement in time up known climbs from 1989 (epi discovered 1990) compared with lance Armstrong in 2000s. Alpe d'huez record went from 48mins (hinault and lemond) to 36 in 10 years.

Tiger, what they do on the bike is epic. I climbed mont ventoux this year in May. Only did 30k beforehand compared to the 222k the TdF boys did.  Was an unreal experience.

Chapeau mate! Ventoux great achievement ! Two friends of mine mirrored the classic Milan-St Remo race last year and have invited me to do it with them again next Spring. I'm running out of excuses now as the wife told them she had no objections. Better dig out the turbo this winter!!

whocares wrote:

ebop wrote:Clean product, do you honestly believe that? The cheats will be ahead of the system and most 'think' cycling is still a bent sport.

To be fair, cycling is the only sport where anti doping is taken seriously. You get probably 10 times more testing than in any other sports. Blood samples are kept too so that you can always test them in a near future when techniques have evolved. Cyclists have taken a lot of stick because of what happened during a good 10-15 years and rightly so but at least they are getting their act together. I still have my doubts about some of the riders but one could say its a minority when you look at the relative performances between now and 5-10 years ago. Whereas in other sports like athletics, tennis and rugby they cannot even say that and the rules seem more lenient towards cheats.

Don't waste your time, GE says the sport is bent......end of.

Are you're saying it isn't tiger, end...of...

I'm willing to be persuaded to your way. Quins posted some times. Do the time these days compare with the times of lances era? What about the overall time? It probably will be slower no doubt.

ebop wrote:Are you're saying it isn't tiger, end...of...

I'm willing to be persuaded to your way. Quins posted some times. Do the time these days compare with the times of lances era? What about the overall time? It probably will be slower no doubt.

Mate, I said earlier (and I believe) Pro Cycling is 99% clean which is probably as much as you can hope for, I bet the same can be said for Rugby Union tbh.

Cycling - the best times now are less than at the height of its troubles is a very good sign.

As for the rest of this thread it pretty much seems to be a bad case of small population syndrome..